When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 21.4 1区 心理学 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES Nature Human Behaviour Pub Date : 2024-10-28 DOI:10.1038/s41562-024-02024-1
Michelle Vaccaro, Abdullah Almaatouq, Thomas Malone
{"title":"When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Michelle Vaccaro, Abdullah Almaatouq, Thomas Malone","doi":"10.1038/s41562-024-02024-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Inspired by the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) to augment humans, researchers have studied human–AI systems involving different tasks, systems and populations. Despite such a large body of work, we lack a broad conceptual understanding of when combinations of humans and AI are better than either alone. Here we addressed this question by conducting a preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis of 106 experimental studies reporting 370 effect sizes. We searched an interdisciplinary set of databases (the Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library, the Web of Science and the Association for Information Systems eLibrary) for studies published between 1 January 2020 and 30 June 2023. Each study was required to include an original human-participants experiment that evaluated the performance of humans alone, AI alone and human–AI combinations. First, we found that, on average, human–AI combinations performed significantly worse than the best of humans or AI alone (Hedges’ g = −0.23; 95% confidence interval, −0.39 to −0.07). Second, we found performance losses in tasks that involved making decisions and significantly greater gains in tasks that involved creating content. Finally, when humans outperformed AI alone, we found performance gains in the combination, but when AI outperformed humans alone, we found losses. Limitations of the evidence assessed here include possible publication bias and variations in the study designs analysed. Overall, these findings highlight the heterogeneity of the effects of human–AI collaboration and point to promising avenues for improving human–AI systems. Vaccaro et al. present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of human–AI combinations, finding that on average, human–AI combinations performed significantly worse than the best of humans or AI alone. They also found performance losses in decision-making tasks and significantly greater gains in content creation tasks.","PeriodicalId":19074,"journal":{"name":"Nature Human Behaviour","volume":"8 12","pages":"2293-2303"},"PeriodicalIF":21.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02024-1.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Human Behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02024-1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Inspired by the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) to augment humans, researchers have studied human–AI systems involving different tasks, systems and populations. Despite such a large body of work, we lack a broad conceptual understanding of when combinations of humans and AI are better than either alone. Here we addressed this question by conducting a preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis of 106 experimental studies reporting 370 effect sizes. We searched an interdisciplinary set of databases (the Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library, the Web of Science and the Association for Information Systems eLibrary) for studies published between 1 January 2020 and 30 June 2023. Each study was required to include an original human-participants experiment that evaluated the performance of humans alone, AI alone and human–AI combinations. First, we found that, on average, human–AI combinations performed significantly worse than the best of humans or AI alone (Hedges’ g = −0.23; 95% confidence interval, −0.39 to −0.07). Second, we found performance losses in tasks that involved making decisions and significantly greater gains in tasks that involved creating content. Finally, when humans outperformed AI alone, we found performance gains in the combination, but when AI outperformed humans alone, we found losses. Limitations of the evidence assessed here include possible publication bias and variations in the study designs analysed. Overall, these findings highlight the heterogeneity of the effects of human–AI collaboration and point to promising avenues for improving human–AI systems. Vaccaro et al. present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of human–AI combinations, finding that on average, human–AI combinations performed significantly worse than the best of humans or AI alone. They also found performance losses in decision-making tasks and significantly greater gains in content creation tasks.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人类与人工智能的结合何时有用?系统回顾与荟萃分析
受越来越多地使用人工智能(AI)来增强人类能力的启发,研究人员对涉及不同任务、系统和人群的人类-AI 系统进行了研究。尽管开展了如此大量的工作,但我们对人类与人工智能的组合何时优于二者单独使用缺乏广泛的概念性理解。为了解决这个问题,我们对 106 项报告了 370 个效应大小的实验研究进行了预先登记的系统回顾和荟萃分析。我们搜索了一套跨学科数据库(计算机械协会数字图书馆、科学网和信息系统协会电子图书馆),以查找 2020 年 1 月 1 日至 2023 年 6 月 30 日期间发表的研究。每项研究都必须包含一个原始的人类-参与者实验,评估人类单独、人工智能单独和人类-人工智能组合的性能。首先,我们发现,平均而言,人类-人工智能组合的表现明显差于人类或人工智能单独的最佳表现(赫德斯 g = -0.23;95% 置信区间,-0.39 至 -0.07)。其次,我们发现在涉及决策的任务中,人类的表现会有所下降,而在涉及创建内容的任务中,人类的表现则会明显提高。最后,当人类的表现优于单独使用人工智能时,我们发现人类和人工智能的组合会提高绩效,但当人工智能的表现优于单独使用人类时,我们发现人类和人工智能的组合会降低绩效。本文评估的证据存在局限性,包括可能存在的发表偏差和所分析研究设计的差异。总之,这些研究结果凸显了人类与人工智能合作效果的异质性,并为改进人类与人工智能系统指出了大有可为的途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Nature Human Behaviour
Nature Human Behaviour Psychology-Social Psychology
CiteScore
36.80
自引率
1.00%
发文量
227
期刊介绍: Nature Human Behaviour is a journal that focuses on publishing research of outstanding significance into any aspect of human behavior.The research can cover various areas such as psychological, biological, and social bases of human behavior.It also includes the study of origins, development, and disorders related to human behavior.The primary aim of the journal is to increase the visibility of research in the field and enhance its societal reach and impact.
期刊最新文献
Ethics of genomic research on occupational status Predicting surprise across contexts Incorporate climate injustice into carbon labels Behaviour-based dependency networks between places shape urban economic resilience The relationship between the youth-led Fridays for Future climate movement and voting, politician and media behaviour in Germany
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1